Introduction
In a recent landmark judgment, the High Court severely disapproved of a practice whereby police security is being offered for money. The bench conveyed serious doubts that such deals taint the sanctity of the justice system and make it an unfair field for those who are in pursuit of protection.
Background
The outcry followed a series of instances where groups and individuals allegedly paid for added police protection. Critics argued that the practice not only promotes a system of patronage but also undermines the notion of equal access to state protection. Over the past few months, various stakeholders like civil society players and legal observers have complained that the payment-for-protection system generates a two-tier system that serves the interests of only those who are able to pay, and excludes poorer citizens.
Key Points
- Undermining Justice: The Court stressed that where protection is provided only for a fee, it erodes public trust in the impartiality and fairness of the police.
- Equal Access to Protection: The verdict emphasized that state protection should be an essential right available to everybody regardless of the economic status.
- Precedent and Policy Issues: The decision declared that such practices elsewhere have led to unequal treatment and loss of faith in the justice system.
- Calls for Reform: The judgment has triggered demands for legislative and administrative reforms to ensure police protection free from commercial pressure.
Recent Developments
Following the decision, legal specialists and campaign organizations have already started calling on politicians to reexamine existing policy that covers police protection. Multiple debates are now underway within parliamentarian committees and law enforcement forces regarding whether more stringent monitoring methods could be feasible. Internal examination of their protection policy has already begun at a number of police stations, as some signs emerge that a move towards more balanced approaches is in sight.
Conclusion
Denomination of the High Court to eliminate the payment-for-protection racket is a move in accordance with the general principles of equality of justice and accountability of the government. By claiming corruption as the main element of the policy, the Court raised a huge debate on the necessity to reform the police protection system. In my view, the agreement that is forthcoming would be satisfactory if the newfound power of accessibility between crime and efficient law would be equalized, regardless of financial status. Staying on the other side of the argument, I would argue that the new approach would see the offenders down to the roots of their will to break the law whereby such a situation would become into a thing of the past. As time goes on, there will surely be lead to systematic changes.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by OUM NARANG
